Chili

To be honest, dear reader, I myself would have kept all my possession and just given my own self and so have the best of both worlds, but apparently that is easier said than done.

Julio

I would ask for OPTIONS before involving myself in the scheme!
I would ask Peter this intrusive question:

"Hey, pope Peter, look, when finally all of your followers get their properties delivered to your Vatican Bank, and we have no house to go to sleep, where exactly have you planned to accommodate the THREE THOUSAND of us all, your holiness?!!..."

It appears that the pope had no back up plan, and most of those now destitute, with no dwelling to go cook their meals, revolted and disbanded, leaving the pope only with the cash!

David Henson

Well, what in the world do you post for?! Because if you post trying to convince me of something I think is pure nonsense or worse, if you think that I am posting to convince you of the same, it is very difficult for me to take that seriously.

I have implied that that is what the Bible says, can you give me a better intepretation?

darstec

You can redefine a traffic light signal to mean that red means
go.**However you are going to be on a collision course with reality.*
If you want to redefine words then make up new ones.**Perhaps you
should think about this:

Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. `That seems to
be done right --' he began.

`You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for
him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems
to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly
just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four
days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's
all.'

darstec

And how do you know what the bible says? Do you read the original languages each of the books were written in? How do you know which of the canonical books which are no longer canonical that should actually be read? Which of the thousands of conflicting ancient manuscripts have you read, and how do you personally determine which ones were faithfully reproduced?

Do you even know how far removed any copy of a copy of a copy has been since any original autograph was first written? How do you know who wrote that particular book and whether she or even he had permissions to write it from any god?

Or are you confusing faith that everything has been selected for you and translated properly with actually knowledge of the same? Note that in order to know you have to answer yes the question of original languages. I think you like all true believers substitute knowledge when you actually mean belief.

David Henson

How many people do you think read the original languages of the Bible?

What does that matter?

Conflicting? Do you realize that any of these questions you are asking me applies to you as well? If I have no opinion then do you?

Yeah. Silly question.

Does it really matter?

Let me put it to you this way. In 1000 years of Bible translation . . . and this can be demonstrated there was only one significant change in a certain chapter of Isaiah which consisted of three letters making up the word light which didn't change the meaning of the text.

Now, you go . . . and I speak of this from personal experience . . . and you copy the Nihongi, the Kojiki, the Dhammapada, or even Jacob A. Riis' How The Other Half Lives off the internet and you compare those as far as errors go and thy mouth will be shuteth.

The reason? The translation of the Bible wasn't inspired, it needn't have been. That isn't the point. The point is the copying of it was such that there are remarkably few mistakes.

<edit>

Transient

Are your christian friends as foul-mouthed as you are?

Toto

Please demonstrate this.

This sounds like a garbled version of this argument, which applies not to the translation of the entire Bible, but to a comparison of the Masoretic text with the Scroll of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and only chapter 53 of that:

Norman Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk), Moody Press, Page 263

But that claim has been disputed here

David Henson

Oh, its disputed here.

<edit>

Doug Shaver

Did you ever hear a sermon like that in any church you attended?